Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK CAA: A380 Wake Vortex Seperation Requirements  
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24964 posts, RR: 56
Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...plicationid=11&mode=detail&id=2110
The main points:

10nm between the A380 and any a/c following it on approach.
1 additional minute added on for departure spacing following an A380 departure
Minimum of 15nm radar seperation for all other phases of flight for an A380 and any other a/c at the same altititude of 1500ft below.


Overall, those who said the A380 would need the same amount of spacing as a B747 are absolutely wrong. A380 spacing nearly double that of the B747.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

Nothing new. CAA was just following ICAO which made the same recommendation a few weeks back. Also it clearly states in the ATSIN the aircraft is in development and that this spacing recommendation is not permanent. Please don't take sentences out of context or blow it out of proportion.


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineOvercast From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

This is just the CAA repeating the ICAO recommendations, except these to refined once all the testing is complete.

User currently offlineBBJII From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 850 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

I saw these figures a few days ago. Looks like the A380 could be ATC's worst nightmare...more so at Busy airport with Busy Airspace such as London.


 wave 



Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24964 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 1):
Also it clearly states in the ATSIN the aircraft is in development and that this spacing recommendation is not permanent.

Which could mean it will be less or will be even more. Or it could just stay the way it is.
However, if it remains as the CAA have suggested, then the A380 will actually add to the congestion at airports such as LHR instead of reducing it. Thats the way I interprate the document, before anyone calls me anti Airbus or whatever  Wink



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24964 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3393 times:

P.S. Does anyone have a link to the ICAO recommendations? Cheers  Wink


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 4):
Thats the way I interprate the document, before anyone calls me anti Airbus or whatever

GKirk - you are such as whatever!  Smile



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

As far as Heathrow is concern it may not be as big a problem people are suggesting. Remember it runs in segregated mode. The IC can keep it low on downwind out of the way of others and the FD can TEAM it on to the departure runway. Problem solved. Nimby complaints start flooding in.


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24964 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3301 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
Remember it runs in segregated mode.

I thought they were going to be changing that to dual ops mode alowing for arrivals and departures on each runway?
As for the NIMBY's , shoot them  Wink



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3250 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 5):
P.S. Does anyone have a link to the ICAO recommendations?

I have a copy of the letter, but it isn't 'postable', it''s not from a website.

However I can confirm that the CAA's wording is the same as the ICAO's except in the matter of vertical spacing. The ICAO only recommended 'offset tracks' or 'additional vertical spacing' over the normal 1,000 ft., without specifying an amount. The CAA says 1,500 ft.

Both documents say that the whole matter is subject to a final determination later this year.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3183 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 8):
changing that to dual ops mode

The final timing has not been decided yet. It should happen in 2-3 years' time.

For each 10Nm spacing pair you lose 4 arrivals slots in segregated mode unless you TEAM but you lose nothing in mixed mode because you can shoot more than 1 (probably 2-3) departures in the 10Nm gap. Some clever departure sequencing required.

[Edited 2006-01-16 15:18:04]


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3106 times:

It is just preliminary stuff. The 747 had similar directives when it was being tested, but eventually the minimums were revised in line with operational experience.

Worth noting too that initial data was done using the unmodified A380 wing which had a turbulence problem affecting the rear stabiliser. Redesigning the canoes and associated surfaces deals with that problem, and will additionally reduce further the wake turbulence the wing produces.


User currently offlineGlacote From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Thread starter):
Overall, those who said the A380 would need the same amount of spacing as a B747 are absolutely wrong. A380 spacing nearly double that of the B747.

And those who jump on anything that can be used to bash the A380 still make fool of themselves.

Nice try - but instead of serving perished and already debunked FUD please bak up your claims with facts next time.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24964 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2806 times:

Quoting Glacote (Reply 12):
Nice try - but instead of serving perished and already debunked FUD please bak up your claims with facts next time.

The figures in the CAA, although they may not be the final figures, prove that this isn't rubbish, so I suggest you stop trying to start an A vs B fight.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7):
As far as Heathrow is concern it may not be as big a problem people are suggesting. Remember it runs in segregated mode. The IC can keep it low on downwind out of the way of others and the FD can TEAM it on to the departure runway. Problem solved. Nimby complaints start flooding in.

Problem solved? Hardly. You see, if it takes special ops to make it not delay anything, then it's a solution, yes, but you could apply that solution to OTHER jets, and their effective spacing also drops. You aren't making the A380 like other jets in this regard, you're just finding a way to make it not worse, but from this solution, it seems LHR would be better off doing this for ALL operations, as it would free up more coveted landing and takeoff slots at premium times of day.

So, why aren't they doing it already? Is it a matter of noise? If so, the A380 is quiet, so it shouldn't be a problem, but the other jets shifted around might, no?

It'll be interesting to see if Airbus lobbies for 10nm spacing during the testing of the 748. Just to make it fair.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9):
Both documents say that the whole matter is subject to a final determination later this year.

That was the important part from day 1.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic UK CAA: A380 Wake Vortex Seperation Requirements
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Wake Vortex Directly Below Large Aircraft? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 19:08:00 by Julesmusician
More Wake Vortex Questions... posted Fri Sep 10 2004 08:38:17 by Videns
UK CAA And 380 Separation Requirements posted Mon Jan 16 2006 17:37:29 by PhilSquares
The A380 And Wake Turbulence posted Fri Oct 8 2004 07:37:02 by Jason McDowell
Boeing 737 Minimum Take-off/Landing Requirements posted Fri Nov 3 2006 16:22:57 by NZ8800
A380 Wing posted Wed Nov 1 2006 07:01:36 by GlobalVillage
A380 Delay -- Is It Really Catia posted Mon Oct 16 2006 20:49:19 by Dvautier
747 A380 Slide Of Death Photo posted Fri Oct 6 2006 20:30:42 by Airfoilsguy
A380 Maximum Weight Rejected T/O Footage? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 20:12:00 by Spruit
747 Vs A380-School Project; Need Help posted Tue Sep 19 2006 03:07:29 by Speedbird747BA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format